I show you something far more interesting - Gandalf tapdancing.

In true Islamic fashion, Gandalf fabricates any story he can, no matter how ludicrous, to fit the evidence but still make me out to be a liar. Using Islamic logic he "proves" that I am lying by blindly asserting that not a single other historian in the world agrees with Lewis - a position that is both ridiculous and impossible for him to know.

Perhaps this is preferable to acknowledging the truth about the treaty of Medina and the lie that all Muslims spin about Muhammad's genocide of the Jews. Gandalf is martyring his own credibility for the credibility of Islam.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2018 at 7:23pm:


FD when you first made the claim you cited the wikipedia article in which it paraphrased Lewis and Lewis alone as making this claim. Thats where you got it from. You have provided not a single other citation for the claim. If you knew for a fact others had said it - such that it would render your claim truthful - you would have cited them by now. You are now resorting to your favourite game of 'if I stay mum on the actual evidence, I can't be accused of lying'. Its quite pathetic.

Its literally no different to when you lied by attributing a whole bunch of claims to "muslims" (plural) that you read me and only me say.

Casually pluralising things you've only heard a single person say seems to be one of your specialties.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 11:20am:


Gandalf what is it with Muslims making up so many lies about Islam?

Does the wikipedia article actually say, or even imply, that Lewis is the only historian to hold that view? Or is this just another attempt to twist the facts?

How does your distortion of this fit in with the Islamic rules for establishing the legitimacy of historical claims?

Do you know who was the first person to concoct the treaty violation excuse for Muhammad's genocide?

Quote:


If you tell a transparent lie that you are not even capable of knowing by any honest means, that is what the discussion is going to be about.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:


I'm curious FD, do you think you are "capable of knowing by any honest means" that your statement of fact that other historians besides Bernard Lewis made the claim attributed only to him in the only source you have cited?

And if you are - why on earth haven't you just provided the evidence already? In FD world is it always considered completely unreasonable to insist on evidence for your claims?

Quote:


Sure, if I thought that was the real issue here, I'm sure we could get to the bottom of it quickly enough. But the real issue is your choice to make a claim that is both absurd and impossible for you to know, and to choose the trivial rather than substantive. Given that only a complete idiot would actually take a contrary position, and you only do so after a lot of prodding, I don't see any need to prove something that is both trivial and bleeding obvious.

BTW, you are also misrepresenting what I said.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2018 at 9:04am:


Gandalf, providing an example to back up what you say is not lying. Is this another example of special Islamic logic melting your brain?

You also claimed, after much prodding, that no other historian in the world agrees with the statement. Are you backpedaling on this? That would be understandable, given how stupid the claim is. Are you accusing me of lying while also refusing to disagree with me?

Are you retreating to the absurd as a way of avoiding the broader issues, like where this BS excuse for Muhammad's genocide came from?

It may be instructive to note that FD has never ruled out the use of porkies in his campaign against the Muselman. This is despite being asked numerous times over a number of years and given the option of providing a simple yes or no to suffice. Every time he was asked this question, FD disappeared - poof!

Supplementary questions have addressed FD's reasons for not providing a response. Is FD scared? Is he shy? Is he wrong? Is he so into telling porkies that he forgets that he's lying?

These are all valid reasons for telling porkies in one's criticism of the Muselman, of course, but pre-2007 FD would have none of it. He believed in facts and figures and scholarly analysis. He believed in respectful debate. If you have a position, put it forward and let us test it through the process of debate. If you're wrong, admit it and acknowledge the truth. This is what it means to be civilised. This is what separates us from the barbarian. This is the process of knowledge.

Then, in 2007, FD changed his mind. This is thanks to a devious and cunning Muselman by the name of Abu who, while a real all-round rotter, was smart. He showed FD where Uncle and Mother had got one over the Muselman, ripping him off and cheating him. He showed FD where FD's own culture had been mean and nasty to the Muselman.

Now FD didn't like that, he believed in Freeeeedom. But FD didn't want to go to all the trouble of reading books and articles and presenting a credible alternative case either, so he decided to make stuff up. Rather than agreeing with facts and acknowledging the truth, FD decided to tell fibs instead, and he has done so to this very day.

When FD's fibs were pointed out to him, he disappeared - poof! This was FD using evasion to defend his use of porkies in his campaign against the Muselman. FD became quite the evader, definitely the biggest on the board, noticed by all. FD's tactic was to pretend others were evading. If FD didn't like what you were saying, he'd accuse you of evasion, even when you provided detailed answers to each and every one of his questions. If your answers were particularly discomforting, he'd ban you. If you asked why you'd been banned, FD would disappear again - poof!

As you can see, upholding the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman - or anyone for that matter - requires quite a lot of effort. Sure, it would be a lot easier to just acknowledge the truth, but FD doesn't like doing that. FD, you see, calls this spineless apologism. Here, facts are to be avoided at all costs. Fibs are far preferable to the truth, and if you can't think of any decent fibs, evade, play the blame game and, if necessary, ban them.

This is FD's strategy for dealing with the Muselman and his apologist. We call this Freeeedom. Yes, some people are free, and some are freer than others. As long as you're not a Muselman or an apologist, you should be okay.